Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Harry Dolphin

Logging requirements. Must cacher finders be human?

Recommended Posts

Geocaching permits accounts by non-humans. Mostly dogs, I suspect. (Or at least, Geocaching does not delete the accounts of non-human geocachers.) Most of these non-human geocachers log caches without any problem.

Is there a special requirement for EarthCaches that loggers must be human? If so, I have not seen it listed in any guidelines. The reason that I ask is that a non-human acquaintance of mine recently logged an EarthCache, and his log was deleted without any explantion. The required photos were posted (are photos still required?). The appropriate answers were e-mailed to the cache owner. It seems to me that the requirements for logging the cache were fulfilled. E-mail to the CO was sent stating that the requirements have been met.

Is there a special requirement for EarthCaches that is not a requirement for other Geocaches??

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. The logger has e-mailed the CO for a explanation. No answer yet. The logger has relogged the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that if the Logging Requirements were fulfilled in good faith, that the Log Entry would be upheld if the cacher complained to Groundspeak over it.

 

Concerning the photo requirement question:

 

(are photos still required?)

 

My understanding is that the following portion of the Guidelines answers that question:

 

While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I had to come back in this den of information or misinformation (take your pick) before the Guidelines get changed again by unpopular acclamation. To us, this is the FINAL word regarding the Photo Requirement. The following was copied from forum post No. 85 on Jan 25, 2010 with the topic of "Requiring photos to log an Earthcache Guideline Change"

 

Question

 

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

 

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

 

Konnarock Kid & Marge

 

Answer

 

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

Geoaware

 

P.S. The bold emphasis was added by this poster.

Unless someone changes his/her mind, the above answer should be taken as the final position of the long debated photo requirement. Assuming all other conditions being met (see above), then the photo can be a Requirement which if not met, can result in a legitimate deletion of a log! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

In my Earthcaches, I ask for each account logging the cache to send me individual and unique responses to the Earthcache questions (but it's okay to share pictures). If I receive a log that says "Found with so-and-so, they sent the answers," I will send a polite note to draw their attention to my cache page. I give them a couple of days to respond. Once or twice, I've deleted logs over this.

 

As long as I receive a unique set of responses to my logging requirements, I don't care if the geocacher is human, dog, alien, or ashnikes.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone ask the person who deleted the log for an explanation?

The response was that EarthCaches are an educational experience and were set up for real people.

Share this post


Link to post

Wondering...why do you need to log a non-human find? And at what point will you want to log your cat, turtle, pet rock, barbie doll or dead relative? I can see how this could upset a CO, especially if he/she has an interest in cache statistics.

 

Just askin'.. I'm new around here.

Share this post


Link to post

 

As long as I receive a unique set of responses to my logging requirements, I don't care if the geocacher is human, dog, alien, or .............ashnikes..............

 

We don't need to bring That guy into this forum. Do we?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh Crikey!

If you have an account you can log a cache.

Your request from GS will be upheld and the log locked in.

Some people are such party poopers.

It is just a game.

Share this post


Link to post

Animals logging caches...really? And you are surprised when a CO deletes the log?

Share this post


Link to post

Animals logging caches...really? And you are surprised when a CO deletes the log?

 

We have one or two folks around my area that log under their pet's *persona*, and they are usually the funniest log entries on the Listing pages.

 

The required photos were posted (are photos still required?). The appropriate answers were e-mailed to the cache owner.

 

As the OP pointed out, it sounds like the required answers were emailed and the photo taken. I suspect the picture is the sticking point, but without input from the cache owner, it's impossible to know if the picture was the issue or the answers were incorrect.

 

Could be a "party pooper" or just a diligent cache owner maintaining their Listing.

Share this post


Link to post

Not that they would bother to, I wonder if a Deity would be allowed to log the cache in question

Share this post


Link to post

I would be happy for a puppy, kitty or llama to learn some Earth science by visiting an EarthCache....as I am sure that their owner/guardian/best two legged friend would learn a little as well.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be happy for a puppy, kitty or llama to learn some Earth science by visiting an EarthCache....as I am sure that their owner/guardian/best two legged friend would learn a little as well.

 

I am trying to teach my dog to answer the questions and write out the email.. She is actually pretty good with the questions but her paws are kind of tricky on the keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post

I am trying to teach my dog to answer the questions and write out the email.. She is actually pretty good with the questions but her paws are kind of tricky on the keyboard.

What are you waiting for? Design and patent a K-9 Keyboard. Instead of letters/digits/characters, it would have "woof", "bark", "whine", "yodel", "bay",<howl>, [wag tail], [pant], [drool], <growl>, [lift leg], [display canines], etc. Don't forget to add "I smell BACON...." !

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching permits accounts by non-humans. Mostly dogs, I suspect. (Or at least, Geocaching does not delete the accounts of non-human geocachers.) Most of these non-human geocachers log caches without any problem.

Is there a special requirement for EarthCaches that loggers must be human? If so, I have not seen it listed in any guidelines. The reason that I ask is that a non-human acquaintance of mine recently logged an EarthCache, and his log was deleted without any explantion. The required photos were posted (are photos still required?). The appropriate answers were e-mailed to the cache owner. It seems to me that the requirements for logging the cache were fulfilled. E-mail to the CO was sent stating that the requirements have been met.

Is there a special requirement for EarthCaches that is not a requirement for other Geocaches??

 

I cannot believe you even have to ask the question. Of course if there is an account (human or otherwise) and the requirements of the earthcache are met then the log should be allowed! Some cachers take themselves and their caches much, much too seriously! I know this is not the last time this will be said but here goes........................IT'S A GAME!

Some need to dismount from their high-horses!

We hate log deletions which by the way some folks up here have made it a hobby! No problem for them!

Mr. Dolphin, you and your "non-human acquaintance" can log our ECs any day! :laughing:

 

edited for spelling error. Yes, I know I swore off these darn forums! Maybe, my fingers were crossed! At least I have refrained from posting on the "Geocaching Topics" forum. Plenty of trouble to get into there!

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I recently contacted Groundspeak because I have also seen EC still with Photo of cachers ALRs on them and wanted to have an offical response about it. This is what I got:

 

Hi Jellis,

 

Many EarthCaches do still have the requirement to post a 'proof of being at the location' photograph, which is no longer allowed as of January this year. As cachers log these caches many cache owners are making the change to the new logging requirements. If we are made aware of any cache owners who are stubborn about allowing cachers to log the cache without photographic proof, we are contacting them individually. Simply, many do not know about the new guidelines. Also, a photographic requirement that is geologically significant can be required. A cache owner may not, however, require a photograph of the cacher at the location.

Moving forward, you are able to ignore this particular logging requirement for EarthCaches that are not yet updated. If you have problems logging a particular cache, do not argue with the cache owner, appeal to Groundspeak. We are asking cachers not to seek out caches of this nature, nor to contact cache owners. There will be a naturally occurring attrition rate of this logging requirement.

 

Kind regards,

 

XXXXXXX

Volunteer Program

Share this post


Link to post

So, i should NOT do any more Earthcaches with my pet hamster or ferret, from what i am gathering, if so Bandit and Whitey will be very disappointed. :laughing:

Edited by David Marchand

Share this post


Link to post

I recently contacted Groundspeak because I have also seen EC still with Photo of cachers ALRs on them and wanted to have an offical response about it. This is what I got:

 

Hi Jellis,

 

Many EarthCaches do still have the requirement to post a 'proof of being at the location' photograph, which is no longer allowed as of January this year. As cachers log these caches many cache owners are making the change to the new logging requirements. If we are made aware of any cache owners who are stubborn about allowing cachers to log the cache without photographic proof, we are contacting them individually. Simply, many do not know about the new guidelines. Also, a photographic requirement that is geologically significant can be required. A cache owner may not, however, require a photograph of the cacher at the location.

Moving forward, you are able to ignore this particular logging requirement for EarthCaches that are not yet updated. If you have problems logging a particular cache, do not argue with the cache owner, appeal to Groundspeak. We are asking cachers not to seek out caches of this nature, nor to contact cache owners. There will be a naturally occurring attrition rate of this logging requirement.

 

Kind regards,

 

XXXXXXX

Volunteer Program

 

PLease see post no. 5 of this thread. My quote is directly from Geoaware's post and it certainly looks like, under certain conditions, photos can be mandatory. Maybe not faces, but if the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site, then the photo can be required! Using a GPSr to point to a feature of the earthcache that is delineated within the text is OK! Again, no faces, but using a GPSr to point to a feature of the EC is fine.

Until someone tells me it is not right, without the above described photo(s) we will delete!

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I recently contacted Groundspeak because I have also seen EC still with Photo of cachers ALRs on them and wanted to have an offical response about it. This is what I got:

 

Hi Jellis,

 

Many EarthCaches do still have the requirement to post a 'proof of being at the location' photograph, which is no longer allowed as of January this year. As cachers log these caches many cache owners are making the change to the new logging requirements. If we are made aware of any cache owners who are stubborn about allowing cachers to log the cache without photographic proof, we are contacting them individually. Simply, many do not know about the new guidelines. Also, a photographic requirement that is geologically significant can be required. A cache owner may not, however, require a photograph of the cacher at the location.

Moving forward, you are able to ignore this particular logging requirement for EarthCaches that are not yet updated. If you have problems logging a particular cache, do not argue with the cache owner, appeal to Groundspeak. We are asking cachers not to seek out caches of this nature, nor to contact cache owners. There will be a naturally occurring attrition rate of this logging requirement.

 

Kind regards,

 

XXXXXXX

Volunteer Program

 

PLease see post no. 5 of this thread. My quote is directly from Geoaware's post and it certainly looks like, under certain conditions, photos can be mandatory. Maybe not faces, but if the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site, then the photo can be required! Using a GPSr to point to a feature of the earthcache that is delineated within the text is OK! Again, no faces, but using a GPSr to point to a feature of the EC is fine.

Until someone tells me it is not right, without the above described photo(s) we will delete!

Maybe so but still Groundspeak trumps Geoware. And his website in #6 of their guidelines states:

Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site. This could involve measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording data (such as time of a tidal bore), or sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the answer to Earth science related questions they obtained by reading an information display. While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

And as for animals, I don't see any problem. There are so many children and pet accounts why not allow them to log them in, they do for traditionals. I am sure if you contact Groundspeak they will say the same thing. As Groundspeak told me. It is a game and should be fun and not a war.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I had to come back in this den of information or misinformation (take your pick) before the Guidelines get changed again by unpopular acclamation. To us, this is the FINAL word regarding the Photo Requirement. The following was copied from forum post No. 85 on Jan 25, 2010 with the topic of "Requiring photos to log an Earthcache Guideline Change"

 

Question

 

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

 

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

 

Konnarock Kid & Marge

 

Answer

 

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

Geoaware

 

P.S. The bold emphasis was added by this poster.

Unless someone changes his/her mind, the above answer should be taken as the final position of the long debated photo requirement. Assuming all other conditions being met (see above), then the photo can be a Requirement which if not met, can result in a legitimate deletion of a log! :laughing:

Reread your message from Geoware. He means a photo can be a requirement if it's related to the Earthcache, but not as a requirement to have the cachers faces in it as a requirement to prove the cacher was there.

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I had to come back in this den of information or misinformation (take your pick) before the Guidelines get changed again by unpopular acclamation. To us, this is the FINAL word regarding the Photo Requirement. The following was copied from forum post No. 85 on Jan 25, 2010 with the topic of "Requiring photos to log an Earthcache Guideline Change"

 

Question

 

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

 

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

 

Konnarock Kid & Marge

 

Answer

 

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

Geoaware

 

P.S. The bold emphasis was added by this poster.

Unless someone changes his/her mind, the above answer should be taken as the final position of the long debated photo requirement. Assuming all other conditions being met (see above), then the photo can be a Requirement which if not met, can result in a legitimate deletion of a log! :rolleyes:

Reread your message from Geoware. He means a photo can be a requirement if it's related to the Earthcache, but not as a requirement to have the cachers faces in it as a requirement to prove the cacher was there.

 

I took your advise and reread my message from Geoaware. He nor I never mentioned the requirement to have anyone's face in the photo. I agree that Groundspeak can and does trump Geoaware, but what we were told (via the posts) still leaves the requirement of a photo standing. Standing yes, standing alone no, but no one ever said the photo should be the only requirement.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was saying that you could require a cachers face be in the photo?

If there was further discussion between Geoaware and GS after the above cited posts and those discussions resulted in banning required photos, I am unaware of it!

Photos yes, faces no! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I just logged one of Cav Scouts EC's yesterday and posted a photo of our family dog, Schnitzle. He uses the same account as the rest of us do, he even has his own geoevent geocoin. Cav Scout is kind of hard to send a message to right now, but I am sure that he would rather see Schnitzle's picture in the log than the close-up self-made picture of me.

 

MPH :grin:

Share this post


Link to post

Once again proof positive if you complain to GS you can log any cache you please.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I had to come back in this den of information or misinformation (take your pick) before the Guidelines get changed again by unpopular acclamation. To us, this is the FINAL word regarding the Photo Requirement. The following was copied from forum post No. 85 on Jan 25, 2010 with the topic of "Requiring photos to log an Earthcache Guideline Change"

 

Question

 

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

 

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

 

Konnarock Kid & Marge

 

Answer

 

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

Geoaware

 

P.S. The bold emphasis was added by this poster.

Unless someone changes his/her mind, the above answer should be taken as the final position of the long debated photo requirement. Assuming all other conditions being met (see above), then the photo can be a Requirement which if not met, can result in a legitimate deletion of a log! :lol:

Reread your message from Geoware. He means a photo can be a requirement if it's related to the Earthcache, but not as a requirement to have the cachers faces in it as a requirement to prove the cacher was there.

 

I took your advise and reread my message from Geoaware. He nor I never mentioned the requirement to have anyone's face in the photo. I agree that Groundspeak can and does trump Geoaware, but what we were told (via the posts) still leaves the requirement of a photo standing. Standing yes, standing alone no, but no one ever said the photo should be the only requirement.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was saying that you could require a cachers face be in the photo?

If there was further discussion between Geoaware and GS after the above cited posts and those discussions resulted in banning required photos, I am unaware of it!

Photos yes, faces no! :grin:

I am sure we are talking about two different things. You, I think are talking about the CO requiring a photo of something at the EC site, but without a cacher being in the photo, such as a rock formation at the site.

I am talking about COs who puts a logging requirement of a photo of the cachers to prove they were there. Those can only be optional not a requirement.

So stop fighting me because we are both in agreement

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I took your advise and reread my message from Geoaware. He nor I never mentioned the requirement to have anyone's face in the photo. I agree that Groundspeak can and does trump Geoaware, but what we were told (via the posts) still leaves the requirement of a photo standing. Standing yes, standing alone no, but no one ever said the photo should be the only requirement.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was saying that you could require a cachers face be in the photo?

If there was further discussion between Geoaware and GS after the above cited posts and those discussions resulted in banning required photos, I am unaware of it!

Photos yes, faces no! :grin:

I am sure we are talking about two different things. You, I think are talking about the CO requiring a photo of something at the EC site, but without a cacher being in the photo, such as a rock formation at the site.

I am talking about COs who puts a logging requirement of a photo of the cachers to prove they were there. Those can only be optional not a requirement.

So stop fighting me because we are both in agreement

 

I certainly wouldn't refer to public discourse as "fighting". If such discussions were so labeled, there wouldn't be much room for healthy differences of opinion.

Guess what? The origin of required photos was with the first ECs.. This requirement began with the very first earthcaches! I cannot read what was in the mind of the developer of the first ECs, but never-the-less, the requirement was there! Since that beginning of ECs, I believe the photo requirement evolved to show the cachers were there!

The remaining allowed photo has the same purpose only without the face of the cacher being shown. Otherwise, why have the photo requirement? The photo isn't just to dress-up an individuals found log!

"Two different things"? I think not.

Please excuse my retorts because frankly, I am tired of folks trying to rewrite the guidelines and the intent of Geoaware!

A log may be deleted without compliance with a required photo. The purpose of the photo doesn't matter. What does matter is a photo (absent of faces) can be required if it relates to the text and/or the actual site. No one to my knowledge requires a photo as the only logging requirement, but if said photo isn't up loaded, the log can be deleted with or without quality answers being given to the 'educational' questions! :lol:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I took your advise and reread my message from Geoaware. He nor I never mentioned the requirement to have anyone's face in the photo. I agree that Groundspeak can and does trump Geoaware, but what we were told (via the posts) still leaves the requirement of a photo standing. Standing yes, standing alone no, but no one ever said the photo should be the only requirement.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was saying that you could require a cachers face be in the photo?

If there was further discussion between Geoaware and GS after the above cited posts and those discussions resulted in banning required photos, I am unaware of it!

Photos yes, faces no! :o

I am sure we are talking about two different things. You, I think are talking about the CO requiring a photo of something at the EC site, but without a cacher being in the photo, such as a rock formation at the site.

I am talking about COs who puts a logging requirement of a photo of the cachers to prove they were there. Those can only be optional not a requirement.

So stop fighting me because we are both in agreement

 

I certainly wouldn't refer to public discourse as "fighting". If such discussions were so labeled, there wouldn't be much room for healthy differences of opinion.

Guess what? The origin of required photos was with the first ECs.. This requirement began with the very first earthcaches! I cannot read what was in the mind of the developer of the first ECs, but never-the-less, the requirement was there! Since that beginning of ECs, I believe the photo requirement evolved to show the cachers were there!

The remaining allowed photo has the same purpose only without the face of the cacher being shown. Otherwise, why have the photo requirement? The photo isn't just to dress-up an individuals found log!

"Two different things"? I think not.

Please excuse my retorts because frankly, I am tired of folks trying to rewrite the guidelines and the intent of Geoaware!

A log may be deleted without compliance with a required photo. The purpose of the photo doesn't matter. What does matter is a photo (absent of faces) can be required if it relates to the text and/or the actual site. No one to my knowledge requires a photo as the only logging requirement, but if said photo isn't up loaded, the log can be deleted with or without quality answers being given to the 'educational' questions! :o

I am only talking about a photo requirement with the cachers to prove they were there and that's all. I brought it up to GC about them because cachers are having their logs deleted because of it. One EC I noticed by a well known cacher who has a requirement that a photo be supplied of the cachers at the location(along with other requirements)or their log will be deleted. This is against Groundspeak and Earthcache.org guidelines. The CO knows it's violation but until someone reports it GC will not do anything. As mentioned in the email, they don't have the time to track down all the ones in violation and will only deal with them if the cache finder reports their log deletion if they choose not to supply a photo.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am only talking about a photo requirement with the cachers to prove they were there and that's all. I brought it up to GC about them because cachers are having their logs deleted because of it. One EC I noticed by a well known cacher who has a requirement that a photo be supplied of the cachers at the location(along with other requirements)or their log will be deleted. This is against Groundspeak and Earthcache.org guidelines. The CO knows it's violation but until someone reports it GC will not do anything. As mentioned in the email, they don't have the time to track down all the ones in violation and will only deal with them if the cache finder reports their log deletion if they choose not to supply a photo.

 

If you see an Earthcache page with that requirement on it, hit "needs archived" and get a reviewer to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you see an Earthcache page with that requirement on it, hit "needs archived" and get a reviewer to check it out.

 

How rude! The "needs archived" button should be used very infrequently and with great reservation. I don't believe Groundspeak envisioned it's use as a form of protest, especially if the protester is totally incorrect!

Remember, it was earlier suggested that if there was an objection, contact GS and not start some sort of war with the cache developer! "Needs archived" is like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull! Nothing constructive will be gained by using the "needs archived" button!

 

Once again, let's review the History 101 of EC Photo Requirements:

 

1.Genesis: In the beginning: Please see the very first earthcaches. They are: GCHFT2 and GCHKCK. The year , 2004 started both the idea of earthcaches and the idea of photo requirements. Thank God for both and a special thanks to Geoaware for starting all of this (earthcaching). Note: purpose of the photos, maybe to show the cacher actually visited the site? While viewing these wonderful ECs, you will note that the photo requirement remains to this day!

 

2. From 2004 until sometime in 2008 there was little to no debate regarding the photo requirement.

 

3. In 2008 and 2009 a few folks posted their objection to the photo requirement via this forum. The protests were based on such circumstances as : "I don't have a camera or don't know how to use my cell phone camera", "I don't want the CIA or any other nefarious group to see my actual face on the internet". "My wife doesn't think so, but I believe my face is too ugly to be seen on the internet", etc., etc., etc. Even with these rather vocal, but minority protests, the photo requirement remained! Please note that for those who were sincere, most earthcache developers were willing to accommodate their needs and modify the photo requirement!

 

4. Late 2009, early 2010: along came the big change, not to the use of a photo requirement, but to how ECs are submitted and are approved. There was significant discussion of various proposed and/or considered changes such as the vacation and proximity rules as well as the photo requirement. All three (vacation, proximity and photo) methods remained in effect with very minor modification!.

 

5. With great hesitancy I will repeat the words of Geoaware which most of us took as the final position regarding the photo requirement. Here they are:

Question

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

Konnarock Kid & Marge

Answer

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

Geoaware

 

In summary, photos can be required. As to the purpose of the photos, proof of visit, sprucing up a log or allowing the cacher to demonstrate their photographic skills, who knows, but photos can be required! There is no prohibition of requiring a photo as proof of visit or any other reason as long as the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site. Note the above quote, "specific non-site related content" is taken to forbid requiring faces among other things, but not the photo itself!

 

Thanks and happy earthcaching to all! B)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid the photo issue is a blue-in-the-face subject. Folks will keep saying photos are not allowed and other will continue to point out that they are in limited respect. This subject is irritating at best and a PITA in general.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am only talking about a photo requirement with the cachers to prove they were there and that's all. I brought it up to GC about them because cachers are having their logs deleted because of it. One EC I noticed by a well known cacher who has a requirement that a photo be supplied of the cachers at the location(along with other requirements)or their log will be deleted. This is against Groundspeak and Earthcache.org guidelines. The CO knows it's violation but until someone reports it GC will not do anything. As mentioned in the email, they don't have the time to track down all the ones in violation and will only deal with them if the cache finder reports their log deletion if they choose not to supply a photo.

 

If you see an Earthcache page with that requirement on it, hit "needs archived" and get a reviewer to check it out.

 

As mentioned in the email in my first post from one of the Lackeys from Groundspeak who is the finally word and oversees all of Geocaching said to me about required photos of the Cachers as proof:

Moving forward, you are able to ignore this particular logging requirement for EarthCaches that are not yet updated. If you have problems logging a particular cache, do not argue with the cache owner, appeal to Groundspeak. We are asking cachers not to seek out caches of this nature, nor to contact cache owners. There will be a naturally occurring attrition rate of this logging requirement.

 

Meaning DO NOT CONTACT THE CACHE OWNER IN ANY WAY. Including Archive Requests. Let GC handle it and your log will be replaced and if needed Locked to prevent the CO from removing it.

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

Again to be clear:

Photos of the geocacher = not allowed to be required

Photos of a geological feature = allowed to be required

 

But this is all academic as it seems as if you complain enough to Groundspeak they will allow virtually any log to stand without regard to it's accuracy or compliance.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has run it's course. Several times.

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to read it. If people still want to discuss it, that's their business.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has run it's course. Several times.

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to read it. If people still want to discuss it, that's their business.

 

I agree, things change and it helps to keep cachers up to date after a posting gets buried.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you see an Earthcache page with that requirement on it, hit "needs archived" and get a reviewer to check it out.

 

How rude! The "needs archived" button should be used very infrequently and with great reservation. I don't believe Groundspeak envisioned it's use as a form of protest, especially if the protester is totally incorrect!

Remember, it was earlier suggested that if there was an objection, contact GS and not start some sort of war with the cache developer! "Needs archived" is like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull! Nothing constructive will be gained by using the "needs archived" button!

 

Once again, let's review the History 101 of EC Photo Requirements:

 

1.Genesis: In the beginning: Please see the very first earthcaches. They are: GCHFT2 and GCHKCK. The year , 2004 started both the idea of earthcaches and the idea of photo requirements. Thank God for both and a special thanks to Geoaware for starting all of this (earthcaching). Note: purpose of the photos, maybe to show the cacher actually visited the site? While viewing these wonderful ECs, you will note that the photo requirement remains to this day!

 

2. From 2004 until sometime in 2008 there was little to no debate regarding the photo requirement.

 

3. In 2008 and 2009 a few folks posted their objection to the photo requirement via this forum. The protests were based on such circumstances as : "I don't have a camera or don't know how to use my cell phone camera", "I don't want the CIA or any other nefarious group to see my actual face on the internet". "My wife doesn't think so, but I believe my face is too ugly to be seen on the internet", etc., etc., etc. Even with these rather vocal, but minority protests, the photo requirement remained! Please note that for those who were sincere, most earthcache developers were willing to accommodate their needs and modify the photo requirement!

 

4. Late 2009, early 2010: along came the big change, not to the use of a photo requirement, but to how ECs are submitted and are approved. There was significant discussion of various proposed and/or considered changes such as the vacation and proximity rules as well as the photo requirement. All three (vacation, proximity and photo) methods remained in effect with very minor modification!.

 

5. With great hesitancy I will repeat the words of Geoaware which most of us took as the final position regarding the photo requirement. Here they are:

Question

Jan 24 2010, 06:31 PM)

"If educational questions are sufficient and everything is otherwise OK, can you require a photo if it is not specific as to faces, etc., but is site specific and certainly related to the text? When I say require I mean that the log can be deleted if said photo is not posted!"

Konnarock Kid & Marge

Answer

"You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

If you ask for something in the photo that is not related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

Geoaware

 

In summary, photos can be required. As to the purpose of the photos, proof of visit, sprucing up a log or allowing the cacher to demonstrate their photographic skills, who knows, but photos can be required! There is no prohibition of requiring a photo as proof of visit or any other reason as long as the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site. Note the above quote, "specific non-site related content" is taken to forbid requiring faces among other things, but not the photo itself!

 

Thanks and happy earthcaching to all! B)

 

For the record, I have never deleted a log from either of the two mentioned EarthCaches because it lacked a photograph. I do not enforce that requirement as the other logging tasks - primitive in both cases - works for me. At the end of the day I want people to learn something and be amazed at our Earth....and I don't need a photo to prove that.

Share this post


Link to post

 

For the record, I have never deleted a log from either of the two mentioned EarthCaches because it lacked a photograph. I do not enforce that requirement as the other logging tasks - primitive in both cases - works for me. At the end of the day I want people to learn something and be amazed at our Earth....and I don't need a photo to prove that.

 

I have been following this thread - and others - about photograph requirements for a while now. I agree with geoaware and how he handles logs of his EC's. In a few cases I have received logs without the photo that was requested. However, my questions have been designed in such a way that the photo is probably a "nice to have" rather than a "must have".

 

If the questions have been answered to my satisfaction then I am happy that the person had the geological experience that I intended them to have - with or without the photo. In fact, even if ALL the questions have not been answered correctly I will accept the log IF they have satisfied me that they were there. If I ask 5 questions then at least 3 of them will NOT be answered via Google - you will have to have been on site for the answer. Perhaps if we all design our questions carefully then we will not need to question whether or not the logger was armchairing or not.

 

My 2c worth.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have been following this thread - and others - about photograph requirements for a while now. I agree with geoaware and how he handles logs of his EC's. In a few cases I have received logs without the photo that was requested. However, my questions have been designed in such a way that the photo is probably a "nice to have" rather than a "must have".

 

If the questions have been answered to my satisfaction then I am happy that the person had the geological experience that I intended them to have - with or without the photo. In fact, even if ALL the questions have not been answered correctly I will accept the log IF they have satisfied me that they were there. If I ask 5 questions then at least 3 of them will NOT be answered via Google - you will have to have been on site for the answer. Perhaps if we all design our questions carefully then we will not need to question whether or not the logger was armchairing or not.

 

My 2c worth.

 

Your 2c worth is always welcomed, but for those who are concerned with armchair geocaching, the point is not how carefully the questions are crafted. No matter how scientific and carefully the questions are developed, there are those who openly pass the answers around. Even if one had to take a mobile lab with them equipped with an electron microscope to fully answer the questions, that still doesn't prevent sharing the answers.

Take a look at the numerous threads on 'puzzle' caches. It has been thoroughly discussed that once the puzzle is solved, very often the solution is shared. With puzzle caches, at least there is a written log to 'prove' the cacher was at the cache.

Some, and I underline some, of us believe it is not fair for those who take the time to develop and actually find an EC to have people 'look up' or track down some cacher who has the answers.

I also agree with Geoaware and how he handles his photo requirement. He doesn't/hasn't deleted logs for the absence of a photo and that's fine for him, but the 'requirement' remains on the cache pages. I have no problem with his approach.

All of that is fine and we (KK & M) are also rather lenient with cacher's logs, but if you don't want, like or care for a photo requirement, don't use it! No one that I know who have been involved in earthcaching wants to make the photo requirement mandatory for all ECs. We don't think any less of earthcache developers who don't use a photo requirement! For the rest of us, why does anyone want to deny the use of the photo requiremant? Hasn't there been enough compromise with the elimination of personal specific aspects of the photos and now the photo must be site/text specific?

Look, no one is right or wrong on this topic, use or not use the photos, let it be an individual choice!

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has run it's course. Several times.

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to read it. If people still want to discuss it, that's their business.

 

I agree, things change and it helps to keep cachers up to date after a posting gets buried.

 

You don't know how happy it makes me, for once, to totally agree with you both (Jellis and narcissa)!

Thanks. :mad:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has run it's course. Several times.

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to read it. If people still want to discuss it, that's their business.

 

I agree, things change and it helps to keep cachers up to date after a posting gets buried.

 

You don't know how happy it makes me, for once, to totally agree with you both (Jellis and narcissa)!

Thanks. :mad:

 

.....it probably is time to move on folks.

Edited by geoaware

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone ask the person who deleted the log for an explanation?

The response was that EarthCaches are an educational experience and were set up for real people.

Seems that with EarthCaches, its not that the dog ate my homework, but that the dog did my homework. :(

 

The log was reinstated by Geocaching.

Once again proof positive if you complain to GS you can log any cache you please.

Seems like some people will never get the point of this is to have fun and in the case of EarthCaches maybe learn a little something while doing it. Instead they get hung up on some strange view of the find count being something that needs to be protected by made up rules. If people are having fun writing logs for their dogs than I can't imagine why anyone should care. If the only point of EarthCaches was to learn some geology lesson, I wouldn't even care that some people are couch potato logging these. I assume that part of the idea is to have fun actually seeing the location and perhaps this is why there is controversy over photo requirements.

 

.....it probably is time to move on folks.

I don't spend much time in the EarthCache part of the forum. But when I do, I often find it educational - not as to geology - but as to how people look at logging of geocaches in general and at EarthCaches and virtuals in particular. Fortunately most EarthCachers get it and realize this a game. The owners I've had to deal with even let you log your find if your answers were wrong, so long as they show you have learned something.

Share this post


Link to post

Fortunately most EarthCachers get it and realize this a game. The owners I've had to deal with even let you log your find if your answers were wrong, so long as they show you have learned something.

 

Very well put.

Earthcaches should not be graduate level geology lessons, but a little newly gained knowledge doesn't hurt! Some will never admit it, but most people visit ECs to see some wonder of Nature not to prepare for a Master's thesis! Face facts folks, if all there was were a long list of questions and little else, ECs would fade into the dust. Ooops, maybe that's where they came from in the first place! After all, dust, perhaps started it all?

 

P.S. Marge and I are not going to get out the red pencil and grade EC logs. If there was a significant attempt to answer the questions, that's all we require and if in doubt the cacher was there, we then look at the picture!

 

P.S. We have invited Harry Dolphin's animal friend to log our ECs any day they wish. Actually, he (Harry's animal friend), answers the questions better than Harry Dolphin! Just kidding. lol. :(

As tozainamboku said, "this a game"!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm planning a trip in August and part of that was finding caches in that area. That area is ripe with earth caches and I found almost all of them wanted a picture of the cacher at the site posted in the log.

 

Now I'm fine e-mailing the cache owner a picture of me at the site understanding that you'll probably end up with a blurry version of me or the site because I'm not hauling some fancy camera out there. I'm more than happy to take a picture of my arm or gps or the site in general and post it to the log. It was extremely difficult because of this logging requirement to find earth caches that I was interested in finding. And some of them seemed really cool but this photo of me at the site requirement really turned me off.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I took your advise and reread my message from Geoaware. He nor I never mentioned the requirement to have anyone's face in the photo. I agree that Groundspeak can and does trump Geoaware, but what we were told (via the posts) still leaves the requirement of a photo standing. Standing yes, standing alone no, but no one ever said the photo should be the only requirement.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was saying that you could require a cachers face be in the photo?

If there was further discussion between Geoaware and GS after the above cited posts and those discussions resulted in banning required photos, I am unaware of it!

Photos yes, faces no! :unsure:

I am sure we are talking about two different things. You, I think are talking about the CO requiring a photo of something at the EC site, but without a cacher being in the photo, such as a rock formation at the site.

I am talking about COs who puts a logging requirement of a photo of the cachers to prove they were there. Those can only be optional not a requirement.

So stop fighting me because we are both in agreement

 

I certainly wouldn't refer to public discourse as "fighting". If such discussions were so labeled, there wouldn't be much room for healthy differences of opinion.

Guess what? The origin of required photos was with the first ECs.. This requirement began with the very first earthcaches! I cannot read what was in the mind of the developer of the first ECs, but never-the-less, the requirement was there! Since that beginning of ECs, I believe the photo requirement evolved to show the cachers were there!

The remaining allowed photo has the same purpose only without the face of the cacher being shown. Otherwise, why have the photo requirement? The photo isn't just to dress-up an individuals found log!

"Two different things"? I think not.

Please excuse my retorts because frankly, I am tired of folks trying to rewrite the guidelines and the intent of Geoaware!

A log may be deleted without compliance with a required photo. The purpose of the photo doesn't matter. What does matter is a photo (absent of faces) can be required if it relates to the text and/or the actual site. No one to my knowledge requires a photo as the only logging requirement, but if said photo isn't up loaded, the log can be deleted with or without quality answers being given to the 'educational' questions! :)

I am only talking about a photo requirement with the cachers to prove they were there and that's all. I brought it up to GC about them because cachers are having their logs deleted because of it. One EC I noticed by a well known cacher who has a requirement that a photo be supplied of the cachers at the location(along with other requirements)or their log will be deleted. This is against Groundspeak and Earthcache.org guidelines. The CO knows it's violation but until someone reports it GC will not do anything. As mentioned in the email, they don't have the time to track down all the ones in violation and will only deal with them if the cache finder reports their log deletion if they choose not to supply a photo.

which is not right. Photo requirements should be on of off, nothing in between. Some people don't have cameras and shouldn't be excluded because of it. However, you have to admit, earthcaches do discriminate against the blind. How can a blind person possible measure a distance, size, color, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post

 

For the record, I have never deleted a log from either of the two mentioned EarthCaches because it lacked a photograph. I do not enforce that requirement as the other logging tasks - primitive in both cases - works for me. At the end of the day I want people to learn something and be amazed at our Earth....and I don't need a photo to prove that.

 

I have been following this thread - and others - about photograph requirements for a while now. I agree with geoaware and how he handles logs of his EC's. In a few cases I have received logs without the photo that was requested. However, my questions have been designed in such a way that the photo is probably a "nice to have" rather than a "must have".

 

If the questions have been answered to my satisfaction then I am happy that the person had the geological experience that I intended them to have - with or without the photo. In fact, even if ALL the questions have not been answered correctly I will accept the log IF they have satisfied me that they were there. If I ask 5 questions then at least 3 of them will NOT be answered via Google - you will have to have been on site for the answer. Perhaps if we all design our questions carefully then we will not need to question whether or not the logger was armchairing or not.

 

My 2c worth.

I agree. Besides, IMO, I don't really care if the cache is "armchaired" or not. This is a game and you either have honor or you don't. If you feel you need to log a find without seeing the site, for whatever reason you may have, then it's not worth my questioning.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently contacted Groundspeak because I have also seen EC still with Photo of cachers ALRs on them and wanted to have an offical response about it. This is what I got:

 

Hi Jellis,

 

Many EarthCaches do still have the requirement to post a 'proof of being at the location' photograph, which is no longer allowed as of January this year. As cachers log these caches many cache owners are making the change to the new logging requirements. If we are made aware of any cache owners who are stubborn about allowing cachers to log the cache without photographic proof, we are contacting them individually. Simply, many do not know about the new guidelines. Also, a photographic requirement that is geologically significant can be required. A cache owner may not, however, require a photograph of the cacher at the location.

Moving forward, you are able to ignore this particular logging requirement for EarthCaches that are not yet updated. If you have problems logging a particular cache, do not argue with the cache owner, appeal to Groundspeak. We are asking cachers not to seek out caches of this nature, nor to contact cache owners. There will be a naturally occurring attrition rate of this logging requirement.

 

Kind regards,

 

XXXXXXX

Volunteer Program

 

PLease see post no. 5 of this thread. My quote is directly from Geoaware's post and it certainly looks like, under certain conditions, photos can be mandatory. Maybe not faces, but if the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site, then the photo can be required! Using a GPSr to point to a feature of the earthcache that is delineated within the text is OK! Again, no faces, but using a GPSr to point to a feature of the EC is fine.

Until someone tells me it is not right, without the above described photo(s) we will delete!

Curious..is this clearly defined on the earthcache.org listing guidelines? It seems pretty clear that NO photo may be required as a logging requirement.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems pretty clear that NO photo may be required as a logging requirement.

 

A common misconception. Actually the Guidelines state that:

 

Taking a photograph alone...

 

Which implies that a photo can't be the ONLY Logging Requirement.

 

In addition, from the discussion in this Forum Section, it appears that requests for photos of people and/or their GPS are not generally allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...